SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We recently discussed reddit's woes and the hiring of a new CEO. However, we have seen communities come and go for many years.
Clay Shirky wrote about his experience in 1978: "Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue... And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. ... the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. ... the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom."
There are two clear trends. One is that less input and customization tends to grow bigger. Note how Geocities was replaced with Myspace which was then replaced with Facebook and Twitter. These newer systems take away personal freedom of expression and makes people follow a 'prescribed' system, albeit an easier one to use. The other trend is that communities that try to be truly free and open end up either stifled by that openness or give up. The only obvious exception is a platform that allows us to simply filter out everything we don't want to see, which becomes a series of the feared echo chamber. With the excessive amount of data and the build up of complex rules on how information is shared, where does this leave us? It seems that like the famous iron triangle allowing free (and legal) speech with the possibility of diverse opinions, a cohesive group, and growth only allows you to pick two.
It seems to me this is a wicked problem, perhaps unsolvable. But I wonder if the community thinks there are other design options? Is this even possible with human nature as it is?
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by zugedneb on Sunday July 19 2015, @07:02PM
...that freedom of speech arises/works where people have nothing to say.
Like the USA, when it was colonised. Everyone "was equal", or so they say. It was easy for the freedom of speech laws to get foothold.
Other parts of the world is filled with old hatreds. People know this and people know other people. In all parts of the world, except the USA, everyone knows who the other motherfucker is...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @02:14AM
> Like the USA, when it was colonised. Everyone "was equal", or so they say. It was easy for the freedom of speech laws to get foothold.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798, just 10 years after the constitution was ratified.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @06:33AM
Funny how the founders violated the constitution, but also not surprising. A number of them talked about the corrupting influence of power, and it was no different for them. The Louisiana purchase is another example. And of course, these constitutional violations become precedent in the minds of authoritarians and therefore give way to even more constitutional violations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @10:32AM
No more pursuit of happiness once feminists banned child marraige during the 1870s to 1930s